No, it is not. They said that since someone, which is typically a fictive person, had spent a lot of money, they deserve to restrict physical persons' access to supposedly life saving substances.
I would like to know how far they take that position.
How many people do you feel liek you are personally responsible for killing because you haven't given 100% of your disposal income to food relief? Hundreds? Thousands?
This isn't "I could use my money to acquire food for the poor." It's "I'm going to prevent anyone else from selling food, and that will let me charge 100x as much for food."
Good point, maybe researching drugs and treatments shouldn't be done primarily by for-profit companies, and governments should take this on themselves.
